I just don’t understand the constant implications that there is something scurrilous at work here. In this case they were talking about a purpose-built arena to house a tenant with very specific needs. The City had to find out what those needs were, and figure out if they can even find a way to meet them.

Next, they have to have attorneys look over everything and make sure there aren’t legal pitfalls for either party. Neither of these things can (or ever will) happen in open meetings. Nor should they. Going down a list of AV needs, locker room requirements, square footage needs, security specifications, all in public meetings before even deciding whether or not there is a financial mechanism that would allow it? What a ridiculous-sounding nightmare.

Next, a tentative deal is announced, and the proposal is taken to council, where they get their day in the sun and and are subject to a public process. Literally ANYONE can speak on this topic at council, simply by going to the meeting and signing up. After hearing all of the proposed details, a publicly-elected body then votes on whether it should even be moved to a ballot for public consideration.

Then they go to the public for a vote. Direct democracy at work.

I think the suggestion that the process is nefarious is wrong and disingenuous. And on social media, it often devolves into slander. The folks at the City who have been working on this are good people, public servants, trying to do the best thing for their community after being elected, appointed or otherwise hired to do exactly that.

I just don’t understand the constant implications that there is something scurrilous at work here. In this case they were talking about a purpose-built arena to house a tenant with very specific needs. The City had to find out what those needs were, and figure out if they can find a way to meet them.

There is zero reason this couldn't have been done in an open way.

The central point is, at the very outset there should have been a public committee established to look at what other cities have done, develop best practices, and then go from there.

Instead, we have the Mayor dealing directly with the ownership group behind closed doors for at least two years then merely dumping a "take it or they'll leave" fully-formed proposal on the ballot that results in the OKC taxpayers basically paying for the whole thing.

And now comes the group-think and extreme rhetoric of the mob to tell you that if we don't completely accept objectively unfair terms exactly as the owners want them without any real negotiation, they will immediately sell the team -- even though at the same time we are to believe they have been great stewards and want what is best for OKC.


No matter what side of this you are on, any rational thinker has to see how completely messed up this is.

This is beautifully said. I’m pretty surprised that so many folks think that Holt negotiated an amazing deal for the City and its taxpayers.

Far from it.

The City will never, ever have the upper hand in negotiations with an NBA tenant.

This is beautifully said. I’m pretty surprised that so many folks think that Holt negotiated an amazing deal for the City and its taxpayers.

Far from it.

This is not at all personal towards Mayor Holt, it's merely his position and the way these huge public subsidies have been handled by OKC up until now.

BUT, he has absolutely everything to gain from being seen as the architect of keeping the Thunder and nothing to lose. This is not his money. It won't even come out of the City's budget and detract from other things he wants to accomplish.

The mere fact he ONLY talks in terms of why this is needed with absolutely zero context in terms of peer cities demonstrates his total lack of objectivity.

The City will never, ever have the upper hand in negotiations with an NBA tenant.

You don't need an upper hand to get the same deal most other cities are getting.

As things are, we are lightyears from that.

Yeah this is a bad deal. I really feel like the ownership and the NBA should poney up 200 million and the rest is paid for by the city.

If they paid $200 million, that would be about 22% of this initial $900 million estimate.

They use the arena about 12% of available dates of the year. So, should they still pay rent? Do they get equity in the arena and revenue share for all other events? I assume they would need something more than just basketball operations to service their debt on the $200 million, as well.

One thing that we never really know about when team ownership and private investment participates in arena construction is how they're financing their end. Like with Sofi, I'm pretty sure the NFL lent them some of the money, but nowhere near all of it. I'm not even sure how much the private end of these deals are made public. In the Milwaukee example, I have no idea how the private side is / was financed.

As for the way the campaign for has approached it, I am surprised how much of it is Thunder-centric. That is, it's been pretty much 100% a Thunder deal, and, yet, there is a lot more to it than just the NBA and we've been assuming (or at least I have) that it would have public facing amenities and services that would operate separate from the Thunder and be accessible without a ticket to the games.

The lack of transparency and trickle of information supported by superlatives and not tangibles does seem to be hurting the slam dunk assumption the campaign has been operating under since the first teasing announcement
was made about the project.

Look, even in sports (as in every single business on the planet) the money involved is based on the best data available, not just some arbitrary back-room deals without any points of reference.

Every single team sale or contract negotiation starts and ends with data from the market: What are the comparables?

In fact, it's how we arrived at this $1B price tag; Holt kept mentioning new arenas in other markets at that price point then lo and behold, that became our budget.


What is never mentioned is where that money came from for those comparable arenas.

Why is this completely omitted? Instead, all we get are threats about selling the team, completely leaving the city, etc.

If they paid $200 million, that would be about 22% of this initial $900 million estimate.

They use the arena about 12% of available dates of the year. So, should they still pay rent? Do they get equity in the arena and revenue share for all other events? I assume they would need something more than just basketball operations to service their debt on the $200 million, as well.

One thing that we never really know about when team ownership and private investment participates in arena construction is how they're financing their end. Like with Sofi, I'm pretty sure the NFL lent them some of the money, but nowhere near all of it. I'm not even sure how much the private end of these deals are made public. In the Milwaukee example, I have no idea how the private side is / was financed.

As for the way the campaign for has approached it, I am surprised how much of it is Thunder-centric. That is, it's been pretty much 100% a Thunder deal, and, yet, there is a lot more to it than just the NBA and we've been assuming (or at least I have) that it would have public facing amenities and services that would operate separate from the Thunder and be accessible without a ticket to the games.

The lack of transparency and trickle of information supported by superlatives and not tangibles does seem to be hurting the slam dunk assumption the campaign has been operating under since the first teasing announcement
was made about the project.

That's a good point. Did the team say they'd pay $50 million, still pay rent, and not request our share of revenue from other events or we'll pay $X, pay less in rent, and request their proportionate share of money on other events? Or did that stuff even factor into the negotiation...

Here's a question that needs to be answered:

Has any other city provided 95% in public funding for an NBA arena?


I mentioned the Milwaukee deal where the public portion was less than 50%. I see a $1.3B arena on the boards in Philly that will be completely privately funded. The highest percentage of public funds I can find was 58% by Detroit -- and obviously, that city has very serious economic development issues, totally unlike OKC. Detroit also leveraged all types of resources, some of them federally funded.

So, how did we come up with these numbers for our new arena?

That's a good point. Did the team say they'd pay $50 million, still pay rent, and not request our share of revenue from other events or we'll pay $X, pay less in rent, and request their proportionate share of money on other events? Or did that stuff even factor into the negotiation...


So, how did we come up with these numbers for our new arena?

Yeah, there is a lot of just "fill in the blanks" going on at this point. So, of course, whatever anyone is predisposed to feeling about civics projects that benefit specific private parties, they're just going to fill in those blanks in a way that supports that position.

Honestly, as of right now, if we were voting on it today, I'd be like "vote for what, exactly?".

This is a business not a charity. If this doesn't pass ownership cashes out as expansion looms and valuations skyrocket.

Historically, owning. sports team has not been a business. This is an old article from Grantland about why people buy sports teams (https://grantland.com/features/psychic-benefits-nba-lockout/).

I find it hard to believe that OKC's ownership group would just sell after one vote didn't go there way. Surely they'd do some negotiating and call for another vote. This the-team-will-leave-if-this-fails feels like just creating leverage to win this election. And it'll probably work.

Here's a question that needs to be answered:

Has any other city provided 95% in public funding for an NBA arena?


I mentioned the Milwaukee deal where the public portion was less than 50%. I see a $1.3B arena on the boards in Philly that will be completely privately funded. The highest percentage of public funds I can find was 58% by Detroit -- and obviously, that city has very serious economic development issues, totally unlike OKC. Detroit also leveraged all types of resources, some of them federally funded.

So, how did we come up with these numbers for our new arena?

Good questions. It bothers me that there are people okay with moving forward no questions asked just to keep a team here, or anywhere for that matter. Arguing against those that are asking questions meanwhile they don't know the answers -- Just okay with writing a check or just simply continuing a tax carte blanche without knowing any of these details.

One of the primary themes of Boomtown (https://bookshop.org/p/books/boom-town-the-fantastical-saga-of-oklahoma-city-its-chaotic-founding-its-purloined-basketball-team-and-the-dream-of-becomin-sam-anderson/10858048?ean=9780804137331) is that OKC citizens will go for any thing. Super sonic jets (Operation Bongo), TEEMCO scams, backroom deals. Oklahomans will approve it all. It's like a democratic process is seen as rude to our corporate overlords who gifted us with basketball. More transparency is a good thing.

I

I think if she can frame her argument as being for the arena b.

don't get it twisted she is not for the new arena

One of the primary themes of Boomtown (https://bookshop.org/p/books/boom-town-the-fantastical-saga-of-oklahoma-city-its-chaotic-founding-its-purloined-basketball-team-and-the-dream-of-becomin-sam-anderson/10858048?ean=9780804137331) is that OKC citizens will go for any thing. Super sonic jets (Operation Bongo), TEEMCO scams, backroom deals. Oklahomans will approve it all. It's like a democratic process is seen as rude to our corporate overlords who gifted us with basketball. More transparency is a good thing.

Yes, it's a very weird aspect of our civic culture and something that I've been talking about since I moved back here.

When I was interviewing dozens of people about the TEEMCO scandal, a prominent local attorney said to me in a very matter-of-fact manner: "OKC is a great place for a scam."

It immediately resonated with me because he, like so many here, was so resigned to this state of affairs. It was and is disturbing.


Absolutely anything presented as economic development is quickly and resoundingly approved with far too little analysis or outside perspective and almost zero transparency. And as is always the case with billions of dollars of free money at stake, plenty have learned how to game the system.

Honestly, as of right now, if we were voting on it today, I'd be like "vote for what, exactly?".

The vote will be for a 72-month $.01 sales tax increase that will allocate at least $900 million of those public funds for the new arena.

The MAPS 4 money has already been allocated.

The lease and details will not be up for public vote and ultimately they will be handled in a similar manner: closed-door meetings to negotiate, private meetings with council members to gauge their support, then a quick appearance on a public agenda and then a near-unanimous approval by City Council.

In addition to comparing arenas in peer cities based on demographics, another way to look at it is cities with only one major league sports franchise. Here's the wiki info for each city's arena that only has an NBA team. Most of these are older and cheaper facilities. Golden 1 is the most recent deal:

Orlando Arena (Amway Arena):
In the agreement, the City of Orlando will take ownership of the new arena, while the Magic will control the planning and construction of the facility so long as contracting procedures are done in the same public manner as governments advertise contracts. In addition, the city will be paid a part of naming rights and corporate suite sales, a share estimated to be worth $1.75 million the first year of the arena's opening. The Magic will receive all proceeds from ticket sales for Magic games, while the city will receive all proceeds from ticket sales to all other events.[10] The Orlando Magic will contribute at least $50 million in cash up-front, pick up any cost overruns, and pay rent of $1 million per year for 30 years. The City of Orlando will pay for the land and infrastructure. The remaining money will come from bonds which will be paid off by part of the Orange County Tourist Development Tax, collected as a surcharge on hotel stays, which was raised to 6% in 2006. The Magic will guarantee $100 million of these bonds.

Memphis Arena (FedEx Forum):
It was built at a cost of US$250 million and is owned by the City of Memphis; naming rights were purchased by one of Memphis's best-known businesses, FedEx, for $92 million. FedExForum was financed using $250 million of public bonds, which were issued by the Memphis Public Building Authority (PBA).

San Antonio (Frost Bank Center):
It was opened in 2002 as the SBC Center, at a cost of US$175 million, financed by county-issued bonds, which were supported by a hotel-occupancy and car-rental tax increase and an additional contribution of $28.5 million from the Spurs.

Salt Lake City (delta Center):
Under the leadership and private financing of Utah businessman Larry H. Miller, ground was broken on May 22, 1990, and it was completed on October 4, 1991, in time for late-October basketball games, at a cost of $93 million ($200 million in 2022 dollars).

Portland (Moda center):
Construction began in 1993, and the arena opened on October 12, 1995. The arena cost US$262 million to build; construction was financed with funds obtained by a variety of sources, including the City of Portland, Allen's personal fortune, and $155 million in bonds issued by a consortium of mutual funds and insurance companies.[10] These bonds would become the subject of an acrimonious 2004 bankruptcy in which the Oregon Arena Corporation, the holding company which owned the arena at the time, would forfeit title to the arena in lieu of repaying the bonds per the payment terms.[11] Allen would later repurchase the arena from the creditors in 2007

Sacramento (Golden 1 Center)
The Sacramento City Council voted approval of public financing and other terms on May 20, 2014.[15] The total cost of Golden 1 Center was once estimated to be $507 million. The Sacramento Kings contributed approximately $284 million and the City of Sacramento contributed approximately $223 million. The City of Sacramento financed its contribution through the sale of bonds ($212 million) and parking and economic development funds ($11 million).
Construction costs of the new Golden 1 Center increased to $534.6 million due to a change in the seating configuration that moved hundreds of seats to the lower bowl and closer to the basketball court and additional features

The lease and details will not be up for public vote and ultimately they will be handled in a similar manner: closed-door meetings to negotiate, private meetings with council members to gauge their support, then a quick appearance on a public agenda and then a near-unanimous approval by City Council.

Which is really the part that puts the team's initial contribution in context, imo. So, I'm sure you are correct in how that will go down, but it's unfortunate and leaves a blind spot when making a voting decision.

and out-right manipulation to move the team to OKC .

i don't think that is a fair characterization at all ..

i don't think that is a fair characterization at all ..

You think they bought that team and negotiated in good faith to keep them in Seattle?

If so, you'd be the only one.

The Sordid Deal That Created The Okla. City Thunder (https://www.forbes.com/sites/christopherhelman/2012/06/13/the-sordid-story-of-how-aubrey-mcclendon-and-pals-transformed-the-seattle-sonics-into-the-oklahoma-city-thunder/?sh=1e5751ce36d4)


And Aubrey was fined $250K by the NBA for saying the quiet part out loud:


A few months later McClendon was interviewed about the Sonics by the Oklahoma Journal-Record. He said, "We didn't buy the team to keep it in Seattle; we hoped to come here. We know it's a little more difficult financially here in Oklahoma City, but we think it's great for the community and if we could break even we'd be thrilled."

Have any of y’all filed a FOIA request or would that be a complete waste of time?

Have any of y’all filed a FOIA request or would that be a complete waste of time?

For what, exactly?

They have outlined the terms and they would merely claim about the rest (like the lease or the location) that nothing has been decided.

You think they bought that team and negotiated in good faith to keep them in Seattle?

If so, you'd be the only one.

The Sordid Deal That Created The Okla. City Thunder (https://www.forbes.com/sites/christopherhelman/2012/06/13/the-sordid-story-of-how-aubrey-mcclendon-and-pals-transformed-the-seattle-sonics-into-the-oklahoma-city-thunder/?sh=1e5751ce36d4)


And Aubrey was fined $250K by the NBA for saying the quiet part out loud:

and if seattle had built a new arena he said that part out loud also .. they would resell it for a sweet flip .. they didn't really ask for anything different then the seahawks and mariners got .

For what, exactly?

They have outlined the terms and they would merely claim about the rest (like the lease or the location) that nothing has been decided.

Would be interested to see how they settled on the $50M number for ownership.

and if seattle had built a new arena he said that part out loud also .. they would resell it for a sweet flip .. they didn't really ask for anything different then the seahawks and mariners got .

What he said -- and what he got fined for -- was that it was always their intention to move the team to OKC.

Absolutely everyone knew this, Aubrey even said it, Schultz tried to rescind the deal... Look, I'm as happy as anyone the Thunder are here but there is no way you can honestly say the ownership negotiated in good faith with Seattle. In fact, I seriously doubt you'll find anyone outside of OKC that believes that for a second.

This is $50 million, plus rent of the new arena. So whatever that lease term and amount is, that amount will be added to the $50 million.

This is $50 million, plus rent of the new arena. So whatever that lease term and amount is, that amount will be added to the $50 million.

No.

We are talking about the cost to build the arena.

Other than the fact that the deal is bad, worried this will dissuade the public from voting for the RTA when that comes down the line.

“We’re already paying a billion dollars for an arena, we don’t need no trains.”

Other than the fact that the deal is bad, worried this will dissuade the public from voting for the RTA when that comes down the line.

“We’re already paying a billion dollars for an arena, we don’t need no trains.”

That's a real good point. The overall cost of the arena itself is just one of the economic impacts here. We need to look at the opportunity costs (what else could/should this money be used towards?) and downstream impact on enthusiasm for civic funding.

The vote will be for a 72-month $.01 sales tax increase that will allocate at least $900 million of those public funds for the new arena.

The MAPS 4 money has already been allocated.

The lease and details will not be up for public vote and ultimately they will be handled in a similar manner: closed-door meetings to negotiate, private meetings with council members to gauge their support, then a quick appearance on a public agenda and then a near-unanimous approval by City Council.

These are the important details imo. What are the lease terms compared to other teams. Also, what guarantees that they'll stay through 2050? If its some kind of penalty, it will need to be huge for them to break the lease. A $50 million penalty to break the lease in 2035 will be nothing when the team is sold for over $2 billion. More skin in the game from ownership is a great way to ensure they'll be here for a long time too. Just some questions that would be great to have answered.

What he said -- and what he got fined for -- was that it was always their intention to move the team to OKC.

Absolutely everyone knew this, Aubrey even said it, Schultz tried to rescind the deal... Look, I'm as happy as anyone the Thunder are here but there is no way you can honestly say the ownership negotiated in good faith with Seattle. In fact, I seriously doubt you'll find anyone outside of OKC that believes that for a second.

I don’t think anyone is doubting that. They proposed what was a very expensive arena at the time in Renton so that it wouldn’t get approved and they would have an excuse to relocate and say “see, we tried” which is where the bad faith came in. Though if for some reason it had been approved, I do think they would have sold the team for a profit and moved on to another option.

Well, I guess it's a no from most of the OKCTalk community. Glad we got that settled.

If both of the below statements are true, then I think this is a "No" for me.

1. We have no details of the lease with the city. - Knowing that other cities have routinely gotten $200M (and a greater percentage of overall cost) would require the terms of the lease were super favorable for Oklahoma City. The problem with that presents is highlighted by Urbanized's earlier post: Owners may be looking to sell. Anyone who is about to sell a major asset is not going to lock themselves into an unfavorable lease. Let OKC pay "it's fair share" on the backend since we'd be fronting the bulk of the cost anyway.

2. Significant detail as to the "public" amenities/features are not revealed with the press package. - $1B needs to bring with it needs that have a minority usage as a result of Thunder activity. For example, certain vending sites and/or business suites are used almost exclusively for Thunder events. If OKC is going to invest $900M into infrastructure, a portion of that infrastructure needs to be used daily/weekly etc and for things that have nothing to do with the Thunder or even large scale entertainment.

If we get information on one of the above and it becomes clear this is a good deal for the city, great.

OKC is a great city way beyond the Thunder. We don't need to take significantly worse deals than other cities have received.

If both of the below statements are true, then I think this is a "No" for me.

1. We have no details of the lease with the city. - Knowing that other cities have routinely gotten $200M (and a greater percentage of overall cost) would require the terms of the lease were super favorable for Oklahoma City. The problem with that presents is highlighted by Urbanized's earlier post: Owners may be looking to sell. Anyone who is about to sell a major asset is not going to lock themselves into an unfavorable lease. Let OKC pay "it's fair share" on the backend since we'd be fronting the bulk of the cost anyway.

2. Significant detail as to the "public" amenities/features are not revealed with the press package. - $1B needs to bring with it needs that have a minority usage as a result of Thunder activity. For example, certain vending sites and/or business suites are used almost exclusively for Thunder events. If OKC is going to invest $900M into infrastructure, a portion of that infrastructure needs to be used daily/weekly etc and for things that have nothing to do with the Thunder or even large scale entertainment.

If we get information on one of the above and it becomes clear this is a good deal for the city, great.

OKC is a great city way beyond the Thunder. We don't need to take worse deals than other cities have received.

It has literally nothing of note nationally, aside from the Thunder. If you can't realize that, then I don't know what to say. A person in Milwaukee or Salt Lake doesn't even know OKC exists without the Thunder.

I do wish there was a way to talk to Mayor Holt about it, and see the steps. Could always request it, but I doubt he would say yes.

But what other uses would an arena have? I want to have my "book club" meeting in the middle of the arena, and because I'm paying for it, I should totally be able to? It's for sporting events and concerts/rodeo/wrestling/etc.

BTW, this stated $900 million number from six years of an additional $.01 sales tax does not begin to add up -- the actual number is likely to be much higher.


For the City's fiscal year which ended in June, the same $.01 sales tax for MAPS 4 amounted to $143 million. That represented a 7% increase from the previous year, pretty typical growth due to inflation and all the growth within city limits.

Remember we will not start collecting the arena sales tax until MAPS 4 ends, which means it would start in 2029 and then run for six years.

Even allowing for only a 5% annual increase (very conservative) means we would take in $1.37 billion just through sales tax alone; not $900 million. $900 million is basically the amount you get if you take 2023 and assume everything will still be the same by the time we get to 2029 and run through 2034. At an average increase of 7% that number rises to $1.6 billion. But even 3% average growth would result in collecting $1.1 billion.

But let's take the conservative $1.37 billion, plus the $70 million from MAPS4 and $50 million from the ownership group: That's nearly $1.4 billion in total budget.

$50 million ownership contribution would then represent 3.6% of the total, not including the land value if that is indeed donated by the City.

BTW, this stated $900 million number from six years of an additional $.01 sales tax does not begin to add up -- the actual number is likely to be much higher.


For the City's fiscal year which ended in June, the same $.01 sales tax for MAPS 4 amounted to $143 million. That represented a 7% increase from the previous year, pretty typical growth due to inflation and all the growth within city limits.

Remember we will not start collecting the arena sales tax until MAPS 4 ends, which means it would start in 2029 and then run for six years.

Even allowing for only a 5% annual increase (very conservative) means we would take in $1.37 billion just through sales tax alone; not $900 million, which is basically the amount you get if you take 2023 and assume everything will still be the same by the time we get to 2029 and run through 2034. At an average increase of 7% that number rises to $1.6 billion.

But let's take the conservative $1.37 billion, plus the $70 million from MAPS4 and $50 million from the ownership group: That's nearly $1.4 billion in total budget.

$50 million ownership contribution would then represent 3.6% of the total, not including the land value if that is indeed donated by the City.

But the arena is going to be a set cost. Anything above that will be subject to additional allocation procedures, or set aside for future use, I would guess. It doesn't go into the owners' pockets.

But the arena is going to be a set cost. Anything above that will be subject to additional allocation procedures, or set aside for future use, I would guess. It doesn't go into the owners' pockets.

Not directly, but it increases the valuation of the Thunder, which they can then take out loans against and further line their pockets.

But the arena is going to be a set cost. Anything above that will be subject to additional allocation procedures, or set aside for future use, I would guess. It doesn't go into the owners' pockets.

It would go toward the arena, just like excess MAPS money goes into all the various projects, as it has for the last 30+ years.

In this case, there is just one project.

No City project has a set cost. There is an original budget that gets changed repeatedly and in the case of the sales tax collection, that just gets added onto the existing projects. They don't stop the collection or refund the excess in any way -- it gets spent on the projects for which the sales tax increase was approved by voters.

This could approach Paul Brown Stadium levels of stadium/arena deals.

It has literally nothing of note nationally, aside from the Thunder. If you can't realize that, then I don't know what to say. A person in Milwaukee or Salt Lake doesn't even know OKC exists without the Thunder.

I do wish there was a way to talk to Mayor Holt about it, and see the steps. Could always request it, but I doubt he would say yes.

But what other uses would an arena have? I want to have my "book club" meeting in the middle of the arena, and because I'm paying for it, I should totally be able to? It's for sporting events and concerts/rodeo/wrestling/etc.

I think you're overselling what everyone else has that's "of note" nationally. The fact that the city has the ability to fund a $1B project in about 6 years off of a one-cent sales tax tells you all you need to know about the quality of the city. The Thunder is an amenity, not THE reason to live here.

By public, I mean spaces dedicated to outside foot traffic, parts of the structure that create value beyond when events are scheduled, places where people can stay (apartments/hotels), etc. The Paycom Center is useless if nothing is going to be there. We can't invest $1B for something that is only useful during event nights, especially if we don't know whether that anchor tenant is going to pay a reasonable price to do so.

Again, we see where the majority of OKC Talk is leaning. Hopefully they aren't the voting majority, because this ownership group will sell in a heartbeat and leave OKC with nothing for a national brand, other than being the only city to gain a team by nefarious means, and then lose them within 20 years.

The richest owner is in Tulsa, so he won't care what happens to the perception of this city.

I'm not thrilled 100% with this deal, but I know the alternative is way worse. We will just be another capital city in a flyover state.

I think you're overselling what everyone else has that's "of note" nationally. The fact that the city has the ability to fund a $1B project in about 6 years off of a one-cent sales tax tells you all you need to know about the quality of the city. The Thunder is an amenity, not THE reason to live here.

By public, I mean spaces dedicated to outside foot traffic, parts of the structure that create value beyond when events are scheduled, places where people can stay (apartments/hotels), etc. The Paycom Center is useless if nothing is going to be there. We can't invest $1B for something that is only useful during event nights, especially if we don't know whether that anchor tenant is going to pay a reasonable price to do so.

I agree with you. But most arena areas don't have public use areas. Not sure what you are looking for (I plead ignorance, not bashing you).

The Thunder actually give people outside of OKC a reason to think about OKC. Without them, 85% of this country couldn't find OKC on a map (maybe harsh, but still, the point is there). They may not be the reason to move here, but they are a major benefit, one that will not be easily replaced.

It would go toward the arena, just like excess MAPS money goes into all the various projects, as it has for the last 30+ years.

In this case, there is just one project.

No City project has a set cost. There is an original budget that gets changed repeatedly and in the case of the sales tax collection, that just gets added onto the existing projects. They don't stop the collection or refund the excess in any way -- it gets spent on the projects for which the sales tax increased was approved by voters.

Could the city build a hotel and then sell the property upon completionn? Would that violate the OMNI deal? I feel like the stadium cost itself will be <$800M...the only other major amenity I can think that would come in as expensive that would make up that difference is a hotel.

Could the city build a hotel and then sell the property upon completionn? Would that violate the OMNI deal? I feel like the stadium cost itself will be <$800M...the only other major amenity I can think that would come in as expensive that would make up that difference is a hotel.

There are always price increases and add-ons. Nothing ever becomes less expensive once they start.

I fully expect this project to end up costing well over $1B just based on the very conservative numbers being presented now.

Again, we see where the majority of OKC Talk is leaning. Hopefully they aren't the voting majority, because this ownership group will sell in a heartbeat and leave OKC with nothing for a national brand, other than being the only city to gain a team by nefarious means, and then lose them within 20 years.

The richest owner is in Tulsa, so he won't care what happens to the perception of this city.

I'm not thrilled 100% with this deal, but I know the alternative is way worse. We will just be another capital city in a flyover state.

I really don't see why it's so important to have them. I didn't even know who the Thunder was until I moved to OKC and work like two blocks from paycom. This seems way overpriced to me. Reduce costs by 20% and increase owner investment to 20%, sell naming rights to the new arena, and do a 3yr sales tax of $0.01 to cover the last half billion dollars and I would be all for it.

Besides, it really seems premature to have a vote on this. No information has really been released. It's still wishes and hopes. May present an actual plan to vote on? 14 months seems like a long time just to get to "So.... we are going to vote on an arena and if it passes, this sports team will kick it here for another 25 years."

My two requirements for voting yes for this, assuming it'll land on the Cox site:

1) I would like to see the larger site development plan have mixed use elements including housing. Assuming I am remember the previous conversations correctly (and that those conversations were correct) the arena won't require the entire superblock so the design for the rest of the block needs to be good.
2) The site design needs to better connect Sante Fe station to downtown overall.

The mayor is active on social media. I suggest reaching out to him. If he gets enough feedback, something will come of it. He may not address everyone individually, but he will have a release about it. He isn't the horrible mayor some on here are making it seem like he is, just trying to line his and the owners' pockets with our tax dollars. He is fairly open for feedback, and will likely get back to your question.

My two requirements for voting yes for this, assuming it'll land on the Cox site:

1) I would like to see the larger site development plan have mixed use elements including housing. Assuming I am remember the previous conversations correctly (and that those conversations were correct) the arena won't require the entire superblock so the design for the rest of the block needs to be good.
2) The site design needs to better connect Sante Fe station to downtown overall.

You won't see 1 until that land can be sold. No sense putting together a plan for land that won't even be available for 5 years, let alone in a certain developers hands.

I agree on #2, but I think the Santa Fe station is less of a focal.point for the RTA (unless I read something wrong).

Can we land a Taylor Swift concert if we get a new arena?

The richest owner is in Tulsa, so he won't care what happens to the perception of this city.



But I was told multiple times in this very thread that Thunder ownership were great stewards of this community and had great civic engagement?!

Can we land a Taylor Swift concert if we get a new arena?

No. She only plays stadiums.

It would go toward the arena, just like excess MAPS money goes into all the various projects, as it has for the last 30+ years.

In this case, there is just one project.

No City project has a set cost. There is an original budget that gets changed repeatedly and in the case of the sales tax collection, that just gets added onto the existing projects. They don't stop the collection or refund the excess in any way -- it gets spent on the projects for which the sales tax increase was approved by voters.

and some times excess budget gets moved to other projects ..

and some times excess budget gets moved to other projects ..

There would be no other projects approved in the vote -- big difference from MAPS.

You think they bought that team and negotiated in good faith to keep them in Seattle?

If so, you'd be the only one.

The Sordid Deal That Created The Okla. City Thunder (https://www.forbes.com/sites/christopherhelman/2012/06/13/the-sordid-story-of-how-aubrey-mcclendon-and-pals-transformed-the-seattle-sonics-into-the-oklahoma-city-thunder/?sh=1e5751ce36d4)


And Aubrey was fined $250K by the NBA for saying the quiet part out loud:

https://www.seattlepi.com/news/article/sonics-minority-owner-surprised-arena-deal-not-1274409.php

the seattle city council president actively lobbied for the state legislature to not even hold a vote on the renton plan .. if the state had voted on and passed the plan for a new arena the team would not have moved .. period .

There would be no other projects approved in the vote -- big difference from MAPS.

maps 4 arena money got moved to this project ..

maps 4 arena money got moved to this project ..

Only because it was shifted from the Paycom improvements.

Please, let's not gamble with our city's NBA future.

You're correct Pete, we're in a binary position, vote 'Yes' to keep or vote 'No' to reject.

There are no guarantees there will be 'another election' if this December vote fails; the ownership may be weary and ready to cash in on $1.75 billion which Seattle is waiting on OKC to eject their Supersonics. Our NBA franchise will be sold and relocated quicker than you can blink an eye.

A five year extension will cement the NBA in OKC until 2050. We're going to need a new arena. $900 million is a bargain; a new arena beyond 2030 could cost $1.2 billion and we may not have an NBA anchor tenant.
A 'No vote' will be contagious for future MAPS elections especially if our Thunder are gone.

PS: Ask cities like Seattle, Vancouver, Kansas City, Cincinnati and St. Louis who have been waiting 15-55 years for another opportunity to host an NBA franchise.

BTW, this stated $900 million number from six years of an additional $.01 sales tax does not begin to add up -- the actual number is likely to be much higher.


For the City's fiscal year which ended in June, the same $.01 sales tax for MAPS 4 amounted to $143 million. That represented a 7% increase from the previous year, pretty typical growth due to inflation and all the growth within city limits.

Remember we will not start collecting the arena sales tax until MAPS 4 ends, which means it would start in 2029 and then run for six years.

Even allowing for only a 5% annual increase (very conservative) means we would take in $1.37 billion just through sales tax alone; not $900 million. $900 million is basically the amount you get if you take 2023 and assume everything will still be the same by the time we get to 2029 and run through 2034. At an average increase of 7% that number rises to $1.6 billion. But even 3% average growth would result in collecting $1.1 billion.

But let's take the conservative $1.37 billion, plus the $70 million from MAPS4 and $50 million from the ownership group: That's nearly $1.4 billion in total budget.

$50 million ownership contribution would then represent 3.6% of the total, not including the land value if that is indeed donated by the City.

I'm confused, I thought the City would own the arena and lease it to the Thunder. If that's correct, then who would the city be donating the land to? Or will the Thunder be partners with the City in the ownership of the building?

I really don't see why it's so important to have them. I didn't even know who the Thunder was until I moved to OKC and work like two blocks from paycom.

Experiment: Search for "OKC" on Google Images.

The majority of results relate to the Thunder.

We hashed this over for pages and pages earlier in this thread and it was one of the few things almost everyone agreed on. Anyone denying the role that the Thunder have had in changing our brand and visibility nationally are in denial.